Moreover, `m a` is 'a' plus some terminal element , for example
Nothing, [], Left _ etc, So a morphism (a -> m a) contains all the
morphisms of (m a -> m a).
2012/9/5 Alberto G. Corona <agocorona at gmail.com>:
> Alexander,
>>> In my post (excuses for my dyslexia) I try to demonstrate that the
> codomain (m a), from the point of view of C. Theory, can be seen as
> 'a' plus, optionally, some additional element, so a monadic morphism
> (a -> m a) is part of a endofunctor in (m a -> m a)
>> When considering the concept of arrow from category theory, (not the
> concept of function), a point in the domain can "send" more than one
> arrow to the codomain, while a function do not. I think that this is
> the most interesting part of the interpretation, if I´m right.
>> About this, I found this article revealing:
>>http://cdsmith.wordpress.com/2012/04/18/why-do-monads-matter/>> Therefore, codomains of (a -> m a) which are containers with multiple
> a elements can be considered as multi-arrow morphisms from 'a' to 'a'
> with the optional addition of some special elements that denote
> special conditions.
>>> For example
>> (a -> [a])
>> May be considered as the general signature of the morphisms from the
> set 'a' to the set ('a' + [])
>> So a monadic transformation (a -> [a]) can be considered as a point
> transformation of a endofunctor within the set (a + []).
>>> Alberto
>>> 2012/9/5 Alexander Solla <alex.solla at gmail.com>:
>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 4:21 PM, Alexander Solla <alex.solla at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 3:39 AM, Alberto G. Corona <agocorona at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Monads are monoids in the category of endofunctors"
>>>>>>>> This Monoid instance for the endofunctors of the set of all elements
>>>> of (m a) typematch in Haskell with FlexibleInstances:
>>>>>>>> instance Monad m => Monoid (a -> m a) where
>>>> mappend = (>=>) -- kleisly operator
>>>> mempty = return
>>>>>>>>> The objects of a Kliesli category for a monad m aren't endofunctors. You
>>> want something like:
>>>>>> instance Monad m => Monoid (m a -> m (m a)) where ...
>>>>>> /These/ are endofunctors, in virtue of join transforming an m (m a) into
>>> an (m a).
>>>>>> Actually, even these aren't endofunctors, for a similar reason that : you
>> "really" want something like
>>>> instance Monad m => Monoid (m a -> m a) where
>> mempty = id
>> mappend = undefined -- exercise left to the reader
>>>> (i.e., you want to do plumbing through the Eilenberg-Moore category for a
>> monad, instead of the Kliesli category for a monad -- my last message
>> exposes the kind of plumping you want, but not the right types.)